If Franken wins, he wants Coleman to pay court costs, some lawyers' fees

[Bjorn Against]

Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune

If Franken wins, he wants Coleman to pay court costs, some lawyers’ fees

By PAT DOYLE, Star Tribune

Last update: March 17, 2009 - 9:09 PM

Democrat Al Franken wants the judges who heard the U.S. Senate trial to force Norm Coleman to pay court costs and some opposing lawyers' fees -- a potentially expensive bill -- if the Republican loses his bid to overturn the results of the recount.

Franken sought such payments in a document filed Tuesday summarizing his case. In it, he also asks the judges to consider evidence involving 430 absentee ballots that he had identified as wrongly rejected, and is asking specifically that 252 of them be counted.

Coleman also filed his summary of his case Tuesday, reiterating in detail his argument that wrongly rejected absentee ballots, missing and twice-counted ballots cost him the election. Recount results certified in early January showed Franken on top by 225 votes.

Franken's document asks that Coleman pay the costs of the seven-week trial. And in seeking attorneys' fees for Franken lawyers, it refers to sanctions that the judges earlier imposed on Coleman for failing to follow court rules on disclosing information about a witness, Minneapolis election judge Pamela Howell.

Read more: http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/41394162.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUl

[aquart]

1. Oh, yes.

[bemildred]

2. Indeed. Only fair. nt

[L. Coyote]

3. Norm can have Karl Rove call his buddies at Bajagua

:rofl: Oopphs, Norm isn't a player any more, so no more payola any more :rofl:

[truthisfreedom]

4. Heh. Way to drive rethugs crazy... they absolutely HATE paying bills.

Coleman has been living in an undervalued apartment supplied by a "friend" in Washington for years.

[EFerrari]

15. Ha. So true! n/t

[gratuitous]

5. Not gonna happen

As duplicitous and cynical as Coleman's "challenge" has been, there's practically no way he'll be held responsible for Franken's legal fees in whole or in any part. And if the court does render a judgment against Coleman for being such a horse's patoot, he'll just skip out on the judgment. Norm isn't going to be living in Minnesota after this, and Franken probably isn't vindictive enough to chase him around the country, registering the judgment wherever Normie lights.

[Usrename]

18. There is a high likelihood that it will happen.

This has degenerated into a nuisance litigation.

A guest blogger at BradBlog wrote and interesting article about the shenanigans going on in this contest.

Basically, Coleman understands that he cannot prevail, and he is just trying to delay the inevitable by filing specious claims that are totally without any legal merit. Sometimes these motions are in direct opposition to previous stipulations that he already agreed to, with prejudice, in other filings.

Dead In Its Tracks: An Anatomy of Norm Coleman's Failed Effort to Contest MN's U.S. Senate Election
...

Brad Friedman's described the latest effort by team Coleman to challenge absentee ballots it had previously agreed were properly opened and counted, as a "flip-flop,". While accurate, the term does not begin describe the deep legal dilemma now faced by Norm Coleman's attorneys in the U.S. Senate election contest in Minnesota...

...

After Franken was declared the winner on Jan. 5, 2009 by the State Canvassing Board, Coleman filed notice he was contesting the election. On Feb. 3, 2009 the Coleman and Franken legal teams entered a legally binding stipulation that the 933 ballots were "properly and lawfully counted" and "properly and lawfully included in the results of the 2008 United States Senate Election as certified by the Minnesota State Canvassing Board." As part of the stipulation, Coleman agreed to "dismiss with prejudice all claims in the Notice of Contest relating to the 933 Ballots." These stipulations were approved by the three judge panel selected to preside over the election contest.

The Coleman legal team then adopted a strategy of seeking to have approximately 4,800 additional absentee ballots opened and counted...

...

On Feb. 13, 2009 the three-judge panel expressly rejected Coleman's position...

...

In a Feb. 16, 2009 letter seeking reconsideration of the Feb. 13 order, Coleman suggested that amongst the 933 ballots previously found to have been "properly opened and counted" there were "scores" that did not meet the standards set forth in the court's order. On Feb. 17, 2009 the three-judge panel summarily denied this request ...

...

It was against this background that Coleman filed a Feb. 20, 2009 motion seeking a temporary injunction to prevent the Secretary of State from redacting the envelopes associated with the previously counted 933 ballots, contending that "many" of these ballots opened and counted "fall into one or more of the categories of ballots that the Court has now ruled are 'not legally cast'" Coleman suggests that his earlier stipulation was based on the assumption that the 933 would be "reflective of the standards" that the court would apply to the remaining ballots.

Having practiced law for more than 31 years, I was stunned by this motion.

...



http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6934

Here is a PDF of the motion that Franken filed asking for sanctions in the last paragraph:
http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/2/Public/Civil/22009%20coleman%20franken/Contestees_Opposition_to_Motion_for_Temporary_Injunction.pdf

I think he wins this one.

[gratuitous]

25. I'll betcha a $10 donation to DU

That the court either doesn't sanction Coleman, or that if it does, Coleman refuses to pay (and doesn't pay for at least a year).

[Usrename]

27. The sanctions will be against his lawyers.

They'll pay. Whether he pays his lawyer's fees or not is a whole nuther question. :evilgrin:

[geardaddy]

37. Prediction:

Norm will run for governor when Pawlenty tries for president. That's how these GOPers roll.

[LiberalFighter]

6. So where is the famous ass James Bopp Jr hiding?

Doesn't Bopp want to help Coleman?

[Historic NY]

7. Why not.

[burning rain]

8. Good idea to give it a try...

If conservative wankers want to send their money to Coleman, that's their prerogative, but that doesn't mean the Franken team, or the taxpayers, who fund the courts, should be on the hook for their foolishness as well. Although I doubt anything will come of it.

[pscot]

9. If Al is awarded costs and Coleman appeals

it seems that Al can demand that the money be put in escrow. Comments over at Kos suggest Coleman could have to come up with as much as 1.5 million, plus his own legal fees.

[Me.]

10. Entirely Possible

“Schultz poses a very interesting scenario, one that could bring the entire appeals process to a crashing halt and force the granting of a certificate of election.
The election-contest proceeding operates under a loser-pays system -- so if Coleman loses, his campaign committee would have to pay all the legal costs of Team Franken. Those numbers aren't publicly available, but Schultz estimates it at anywhere between $1-3 million.

And it's also normal procedure in such civil cases, Schultz explains, for a losing party that appeals to then be served a court order requiring them to place in escrow the amount for which they are currently liable. So if Franken's lawyers are smart people -- and nobody would doubt that they are -- Schultz sees it as very likely that they would seek to force Coleman's committee to procure millions of dollars up front just so they could start an appeal.

Coleman (read: the NRSC and RNC) would have to put up millions of dollars in advance just to have the appeal heard. The question then becomes: Is it worth it to the Washington Republican establishment to dump a couple million bucks in exchange for a Franken-less Senate for an extra two months? My guess is that they'll decide against such an "investment," but it won't shock me if Republicans pony up the cash either.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8262748

[WriteDown]

11. This is AWESOME.....

gotta love tort reform. Let's hope it catches on for those trying to win the lawsuit lottery.

[Bake]

36. This has nothing to do with tort "reform"

There has always been a provision for one side recovering fees and costs in non-meritorious litigation of any kind.

"Lawsuit lottery" says a lot about where you're coming from. All tort "reform" accomplishes is to lock the door to the courthouse so that the injured little guy can't get in. It makes the courts the exclusive playground of business, and cuts off justice for injured individuals.

Bake

[WriteDown]

38. Wrong...

Its an identical concept. If you sue someone and lose, you should have to pay their court costs. The amount of frivolous lawsuits is astounding. Lets not forget the woman who sued McDonald's for her coffee being too hot(and won!) and the many others. The system seems to work just fine in England.

[Bake]

39. Do you even know the facts of the McDonald's case?

Obviously not. The plaintiff in that case offered to settle for $25,000, but McDonald's told her to go take a hike. Oh, also they had been cited previously for keeping their coffee WAY over the acceptable industry standards. Coffee is supposed to be hot; it ISN'T supposed to cause third degree burns and take the flesh off. Finally, the McDonald's verdict was substantially lowered on appeal.

Try getting some FACTS before offering uninformed opinions.

By the way, Coleman v. Franken isn't a tort case, either. It's an election challenge.

Bake, Esq.

[WriteDown]

40. Facts?

I actually know the defendant! A relative of a friend here in TX. Holding a cup of coffee between your thighs while you drive off isn't a great idea. It can lead to....wait for it......burns!!!!

You may want to do some reading.

http://www.stellaawards.com/sample.html

I like how you ignored that England already has a working system.

[Bake]

44. The DEFENDANT in the case is McDONALD'S.

So you know the corporation? Big whoop. We all do.

Holding it between her legs? Fine. Still doesn't mean McDonald's wasn't at fault. Burns? Sure, first degree, maybe mild second degree. Comparative fault is the rule in most states in the U.S., not the old contributory negligence that used to be a total bar to recovery. I don't care what they do in Blackstone's England. I practice law in the United States.

Bake, Esq.

[WriteDown]

45. My bad...

I meant plaintiff. Not enough coffee.

Ah, so your a lawyer and afraid they may take away some of those big checks. Understandable.

[Bake]

46. I do defense work right now.

But I have been a plaintiff's lawyer as well. Tort "reform", at least as it is done here, is a disaster. I stand by my comments that it simply shuts the little guy out of the courthouse.

Remember that, if you or someone you love ever gets injured by a shitty product, or butchered by a bad doctor, or wiped out in a car crash through no fault of your own.

Bake

[WriteDown]

48. I'm fine...

with limiting the amount of frivolous lawsuits that the courts has to handle. As you know, many, many, many cases get thrown out every day with no merit. Ideally, the plaintiff should pay the defendants costs. Especially since some of these cases can drag out for years and cost the defendant huge sums of money. Also, if we can stop payouts like this:

CASE UPDATE: "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" (TSA 19 March 2003, and in my
book, page 80)

The tragic 20 February 2003 fire at the Station Nightclub in West
Warwick, R.I., killed 96 people and injured more than 200. It was a
stupid stunt: the band playing that night set off fireworks, setting fire
to soundproofing foam. With the nightclub's insurance maxed out and no
one else to turn to for the expected $1 billion of liability, lawyers in
the case sued anyone they could think of in their search for deep pockets
to pick. One unlikely victim of the tactic was Clear Channel
Communications, which owns a radio station in the area, on the basis that
they helped promote the event. In February, Clear Channel announced a
tentative $22 million settlement with survivors and the families of those
killed. Rhode Island's "joint and several liability" put Clear Channel on
the hook; as long as lawyers could show just the tiniest involvement by
the company, it ended up having to pay even though they had no part in
the fire.

Other deep pockets included TV station WPRI, which was ironically on
the scene to do a story on the dangers of nightclubs when the fire broke
out, which paid $30 million on the theory that their cameraman's
equipment blocked an exit. JBL Speakers paid $815,000 to settle a charge
that its speakers had flammable foam in them; beer maker Anheuser-Busch
($5 million) and its local distributor ($16 million) because their beer
was sold at the nightclub; Sealed Air Corp. paid $16 million, since its
foam was used for soundproofing, even though the foam was not rated for
such a purpose; the State of Rhode Island, $10 million, and the city
where the fire occurred, $10 million, for who-knows-what reason; and Home
Depot (amount unknown), where the foam was purchased. There were also
criminal charges in the case; the band's manager and the nightclub's
owners pleaded guilty and no-contest, respectively, to manslaughter
charges.

[Bake]

50. Few states have joint and several liability anymore.

Most have gone to an apportionment system, where a defendant pays only based on its percentage of the total liability/negligence. In other words, if your negligence only contributed to 10% of the damages, that's all you pay.

Frivolous lawsuits? Most people define that as any lawsuit filed against THEM.

Bake

[WriteDown]

51. I consider this...

0% liability, but they still paid through the nose.

"Sealed Air Corp. paid $16 million, since its foam was used for soundproofing, even though the foam was not rated for
such a purpose"

[druidity33]

49. you spew bull

The plaintiff in the McDonalds case was an elderly woman who suffered multiple 2nd and 3rd degree burns on her legs and thighs. She was not holding the coffee between her legs either. She had numerous skin graft surgeries, was incapable of walking for months and has been living in constant pain since the incident.

She was awarded money in a jury trial.

:shrug:


It weren't no "guy from Texas" that garnered the National attention of McDonald's burning hot coffee...

[WriteDown]

52. I'm just relaying what her relative

told me. Let me ask you a question. When I was living in NY and now less so in Texas, I used to regularly eat pizza (especially Sicilian). I would also regularly bite into a slice and liquefy the roof of my mouth from the heat. It would take a while to heal and cause a bit of suffering. Of course those coal ovens are at about 800 degrees. Do you think I should have sued????

[Bjorn Against]

53. So first you tell us you "know the defendant"...

Then when it is pointed out that the defendant was McDonald's you changed it to knowing the plaintiff. When it is pointed out that your claims of her holding the coffee between her legs were false you tell us that you were "just relaying what her relative told me." So do you know this person as you claimed originally or do you just hear the words of someone who claims to be her relative?

And if you do know her then how in the hell can you compare a person who you know that had third degree burns and had to go through skin grafts and was unable to walk for an extended period of time to your burning the roof of your mouth on pizza? I am guessing that if you actually do know this person as you claim to then you would never dare compare her third degree burns to burning your mouth on pizza to her face, you just post anonymously on a message board and smear her.

[WriteDown]

56. Ha...

I admitted that I made a slip of the tongue. I do in fact know the plaintiff, but that is not important. You may want to do some reading.

Background

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49¢ cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. She placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.<7> Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin as she sat in the puddle of hot liquid for over 90 seconds, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.<8> Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.<9> She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. Two years of treatment followed.

[Norquist Nemesis]

55. Ah yes...the relative of a friend of your neighbor's uncles' babysitter

Sounds like you were fed some urban legend details about that case.

[WriteDown]

57. She post 56...

You also need to do a little reading.

[peacetalksforall]

12. Something is weird about that article. It was stated at the beginning and many times

since that the person who loses pays court costs - and 'some lawyer fees' is too vague to comment on. What he filed is most likely a formality?

It isn't like this is something out of the blue. This is not yedterday's idea. This is the law-policy in MN for disputes and lawsuits for election recounts.

[Hosnon]

13. The request is standard. nt.

[Norquist Nemesis]

14. GOP is hoping for a Bush v Gore scenario taking it all the way

to SCOTUS, relying on the rigged majority to go in favor of Coleman. Since the state courts aren't going their way, that's really what they're aiming for.

[struggle4progress]

17. When Franken wins the MN Supreme Court fight, the Senate should swear him in

[LanternWaste]

47. From what I understand...

From what I understand, when the MN State Supreme Court issues their ruling, Franken will at that moment be certified by the state of MN to be seated regardless of whether the ruling is further appealed or not (assuming the ruling is in Franken's favor).

If the ruling is appealed, Franken will still be seated-- he'll still have to make his case again, but he'll do that as a Senator.

[Festivito]

16. Could be fun to enjoin for loss of Democratic representation./nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. IF Franken wins???

:wtf:

[NewJeffCT]

21. With John Roberts running a conservative Supreme Court

I will never feel comfortable until Franken is actually sworn in as a senator.

[Optical.Catalyst]

20. When Franken wins

Norm Coleman should pay all the court costs and then go to jail for filing a frivolous lawsuit and depriving the State of Minnesota of one of its Senators for three months.

[SeeHopeWin]

22. Excellent!

[Christa]

23. Damn right!! nt

[Bette Noir]

24. Sounds fair to me.

Can't let frivolous lawsuits go unpunished.

[Fluffdaddy]

26. HOW MUCH LONGER BEFORE A RULING IS MADE?

Yes I'm yelling

[Bjorn Against]

28. It should be any day now...

Both campaigns have made closing arguments and we are just waiting on the judges to issue a ruling. After that Coleman might appeal again, but hopefully the threat of these legal bills will cause him to back off.

[Fluffdaddy]

34. lets hope so. We need that 59th vote

[The Wizard]

29. Coleman's plan

is to appeal to the Federal Court where Bush has stacked the judiciary with political hacks.
Some of these Bush appointees should be impeached just for being appointed by the bum who was appointed by Supreme Court justices his father put on the bench.
Our judiciary has been compromised and "Equal Justice Under The Law" is a meaningless slogan.
The only way these rabid Republicans will be brought to heel is with a massive turnover in the Federal Courts.

[AlinPA]

33. If it goes to the US Supreme Court, Coleman wins. It would be a 5-4 slam dunk.

[myrna minx]

30. That is only fair, considering the Coleman camp's unethical shenanigans, as well as this

long drawn out series of frivolous lawsuits, topped off with the Colman camp wanting the judges to "put aside the law and rule with common sense". My, my, my, this almost sounds like litigiousness with desire for activist judges. This jerk knows no shame, and he's making my state, and Franken pay for it, so far. Coleman has tried to make a mockery of our sound election system as well as our courts and he should have to pay for the cost these time wasting antics.

[tangent90]

31. I don't wanna hear IF, I wanna hear WHEN

:mad:

[LynneSin]

32. Damn straight he should

He created this mess - not anything done before the final certification by the election board but by dragging this mess out for months after the board made the certification.

Give 'em hell Senator Franken!

[no name no slogan]

35. Coleman is broke.

Ol' Normie's upside down in his Summit Hill house, he's working as a lobbyist until this case gets sorted out, and he owes more than he's worth.

He will have to sell a lot of blood plasma to pay that bill. Or do a lot of something else that is legal in Nevada (and I ain't talking gambling).

[geardaddy]

41. You think they'll repo his teeth?

[no name no slogan]

42. I go to the same dentist as he does

I wouldn't put it past him. He's totally hardcore. :D

[geardaddy]

43. That would be great.

Stupid Coleman.

[Norquist Nemesis]

54. umm....how is it possible that he's working as a lobbyist?

Memory fails me with so many things going on, but wasn't there a law passed about former elected officials immediately taking lobbying positions?

[no name no slogan]

58. He's a consultant of some sort for a group that lobbies

So he's not technically a lobbyist in that he doesn't hang out in the lobby waiting to buttonhole members, but he is working as a consultant for a pro-Israeli group. He's basically a lobbyist but doesn't actually lobby.